W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2004

removing constraints on 'resource' [024-identity]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:53:19 -0500
To: uri@w3.org
Cc: msabin@milessabin.com, tbray@textuality.com, joshuaa@microsoft.com
Message-id: <1085431998.32025.1257.camel@dirk>

Regarding...

"Anything that has been named or described can be a resource."
-- http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#overview

Based on discussion with TimBL and Roy and a few others,
as well as review of this issue...

024-identity Resource should not be defined as anything that has
identity
http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#024-identity

it seems more straightforward to just say

	A resource can be anything; familiar examples include an 	electronic
document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather
	report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other resources,
	but there is no constraint on what is a resource.

Public discussion of http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ suggest that this
unconstrained definition of 'resource', along with a separate term
for a smaller set of "information resources" is a useful way to
describe the role of URIs in Web Architecture.
(we haven't finished the text yet, but you can see a
diagram at
  http://www.w3.org/2004/05/URI-space-small.png
  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.svg
and some notes on the discussion at
  http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#httpRange-14-1 )


The unconstrained definition of 'resource' is also what was imported
into the RDF specification:

  The things denoted are called 'resources', following [RFC 2396], but
  no assumptions are made here about the nature of resources; 'resource'
  is treated here as synonymous with 'entity', i.e. as a generic term
  for anything in the universe of discourse.
    -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ aka
	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/


I think this captures the input I got from TimBL on the matter; could
you confirm, TimBL?

Roy's input to the recent discussion was mostly in the role of editor,
relaying comments on earlier URI spec drafts. From the archives,
it seems that at Miles Sabin, Pat Hayes, Tim Bray, and Joshua Allen
had opinions on the matter. If you would care to comment on this
proposal, I'd appreciate it.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 16:54:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:51 UTC